xFedal
Legend
The same way Fed never had anyone to stop him when he was 22-27He will win more slams than Fed after 29 because he doesn't have a 24-25 year old version of himself to stop him.
The same way Fed never had anyone to stop him when he was 22-27He will win more slams than Fed after 29 because he doesn't have a 24-25 year old version of himself to stop him.
Exactly my thoughts. Almost = not.
It's more beneficial to not have a younger rival when you are approaching the end of your prime.The same way Fed never had anyone to stop him when he was 22-27
Djokovic is playing in weak era? He will win 20+ Majors then Fine with me...
Wouldn't bother me either! So far he hasn't offended me on or off court as much as the other "Big4!" More power to him; for now anyway!
There is just one tiny thing i would change and that is "BIG 3". "BIG 4" is just and only the product of Great Britain media. Murray is nowhere near Fedalovic in any department to be consider as BIG as they are.
There is no way a 34 year old can play better than a 24 year old. He has changed his game solely because of his decline. We'll see if Djokovic will do that successfully as he reaches Fed's age.
We'll talk in 2021.lol the narrative before trying to diminish Novak was that everyone declined by 29, because Fed was 29 when Novak knocked him out of 3 slams in a span of 5 majors and had his epic run in 2011.
Yet now Novak at 29 does what no one at any age has ever done - win all 4 in a row on 3 surfaces.
Oh and the last time someone won all 4, Laver was 31...
Fed's been out of sorts in 2016 (so far) as he was in 2013, but don't fool yourself into thinking the 2015 Fed that reached the wimb final setting a record for fewest bp faced in tournament history and then immediately followed it up with reaching the uso final without dropping a set for the only time in his career, was some declined individual simply because it was Novak waiting to boss him in finals, rather than Hewitt and Roddick ready to hand him titles like 10 years ago.
Even Serena is losing to players she should beat in slam finals. Why is Federer supposed to beat Djokovic at 34 in a slam final, when Nole is 10 times the players those players Serena lost to are?I dont think Federer plays better at 34 than 24, but I dont think at all it is impossible to play better at 34 than 24. Serena is playing better at 34 than 24. Granted her best ever tennis is not today at 34, but it is much better than she was playing in 2006 at age 24. Na Li almost certainly would have still been playing better age 34 than she was at 24 had she continued. Wawrinka quite possibly/likely will be too assuming he plays until the 2020 Olympics.
Usually people who are playing better at 34 than 24 were noticeably late bloomers or not fulfilling their potential at age 24 for whatever reason though, which obviously wasnt the case with Federer.
Djokovic was 24 in the period post U.S Open 2011 until Madrid 2012 and I do think it is possible he plays better tennis at age 34 than that period, but too soon to say for sure.
Even Serena is losing to players she should beat in slam finals. Why is Federer supposed to beat Djokovic at 34 in a slam final, when Nole is 10 times the players those players Serena lost to are?
For that to happen, you need to have not played as much in some of your prime years, in order to avoid mileage at an advanced age.You obviously dont remember Serena's 2005-2006. She won Australia 2005 then her slam results were DNP, 3rd round, 4th round, 3rd round, DNP, DNP, 4th round, and she only played about 15 tournaments total the two years combined, and ranked outside the top 20 alot of it. Yes obviously current Serena is better than that Serena.
I didnt say Federer should beat Djokovic, and I specifically said Fed is better at 24 than 34. I was just stating no it isnt impossible to be better at 34 than 24 as some are (even if Fed isnt one of them).
For that to happen, you need to have not played as much in some of your prime years, in order to avoid mileage at an advanced age.
That's probably what you were going for.
Marked this thread to come back to it in 2-3 years with a big pack of Kleenex for yaAll meaningless excuses. Bottom line is Fed is current GOAT, and will probably end up that way too.
I personally never considered him a "God" (Sampras and Agassi's domination were fresh in my memory) but felt that he raised the game to a new level and that only the greats (Nadal and Djokovic) could stop him on the big stages.
I don't feel Djokovic has brought the game to a new level - I feel the game has declined and given him the chance to amass all of the records he holds today.
A lot of Djokovic fans are insecure about this era being called weak when it is, so you guys come up with theories like Fed is at his best today, everything is rapidly improving, ect.
I mean even if Djokovic gets to 17, the strength of the era won't matter so why not admit it?
We'll talk in 2021.
Just because Fed played well at those doesn't mean he is better than 10 years ago. That's a huge overreaction.
Fed in his prime dominated Wimb and USO. I doubt any version of Djokovic would boss around that Federer.
Marked this thread to come back to it in 2-3 years with a big pack of Kleenex for ya
Fed has no rivals back when he was 22-27 Roddick or hewitt or bagdadihs or philopooosis/ Nadal was only clay Clay thats all. He was far too inconsistent to be rival on anything apart from Clay..,It's more beneficial to not have a younger rival when you are approaching the end of your prime.
Only it's less absurd when Sampras says it because Nadal has a) 14 slams, b) was coming off the run of his life in 2013, c) easily beats Federer in every single big match they play nowadays. Literally the only thing that stopped Rafa was the rise of Djokovic, but now Djokovic is looking pretty threatening to Federer too. So basically when Sampras says something, he has 14 grand slams, is top 3 of all time, and people take his opinion seriously. When you say something inane like the above statement on the other hand...
I dont think Federer plays better at 34 than 24, but I dont think at all it is impossible to play better at 34 than 24. Serena is playing better at 34 than 24. Granted her best ever tennis is not today at 34, but it is much better than she was playing in 2006 at age 24. Na Li almost certainly would have still been playing better age 34 than she was at 24 had she continued. Wawrinka quite possibly/likely will be too assuming he plays until the 2020 Olympics.
Usually people who are playing better at 34 than 24 were noticeably late bloomers or not fulfilling their potential at age 24 for whatever reason though, which obviously wasnt the case with Federer.
Djokovic was 24 in the period post U.S Open 2011 until Madrid 2012 and I do think it is possible he plays better tennis at age 34 than that period, but too soon to say for sure.
The voice of a neutral, unbiased observer speaking.the rest was a joke...
Feel free to convince me or anyone else that Federer's path was any more challenging than Novak's in the first 12.The voice of a neutral, unbiased observer speaking.
Why would I want to try and do that? It would be like trying to convince someone to stop hating chicken sandwiches.Feel free to convince me or anyone else that Federer's path was any more challenging than Novak's in the first 12.
Interesting saying...must be the Australian thing.Why would I want to do that? It would be like trying to convince someone to stop hating chicken sandwiches.
It simply does not matter either way.
God this all sounds really bitter/chip-on-shoulder-ish.Interesting saying...must be the Australian thing.
Anyway, with the amount of your posts here, I am sure you can convince anyone that Djokovic is playing in weak era and Federer is a true GOAT winning all of those challenging finals (from two bagels against Hewitt, fearless Baggy and Gonzo, the punch-bag Roddick to beating the peak form 35-year old Agassi)...
Right NOW in this exact moment, no, Federer does not play better than he was at 24 and Sampras probably didn't mean he is playing better NOW (cause of his latest injuries), but last year there were many moments of Federer at his absolute best. Particularly in Wimbledon, Cincinnati and USO. Never seen Federer more attacking and how well he executed everything. It was insane stuff. The way he moved was just unbelieveabe, he was flying around the court.
We have to remember this isn't at all how Federer played 10 years ago, he was a pure baseliner who liked to engage in baseline rallies and use his slice to mix up the tempo. So it is different Federers we are seeing. He was a defensive player if you compare him to his version of how Edberg wanted him to play. It will be tough to reach the form he did last year, but there is still time left for him to prepare himself for Wimbledon.
This confirms what i've been thinking for a long time; Pete's on TTW(maybe 90's Clay?)
For our sanity's sake,i hope notCan you imagine the reaction if that were proven to be true. Just wow.
High performance in a sport doesn't automatically mean one can give accurate or insightful analysis of the sport.
Wow, awesome reply!God this all sounds really bitter/chip-on-shoulder-ish.
Nobody important actually cares who anyone faced or faces dude. Just deal.
I won't be attacking Novak because I don't care.
All such arguments are rubbish anyway, just like they are with Federer.
But keep pretending it matters if that helps you sleep at night. The world will keep spinning, I'll keep eating chicken sandwiches, and Federer will still have the slam record.
but at that time there were more quality players. In top 20 there were big names: Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Sampras, Agassi, Kuerten, Norman, Kafelnikov. The level was higher than today. Now there are only four or five players who dominate. The rest is far away.'
'I played with Djokovic at the Australian Open when he was younger. It was clear that he had talent and that could become strong but I didn’t expect him to win 10 Grand Slams. But now winning a Grand Slam it's easier than the past. Novak is complete, focused and works hard. He surprises us for the way he wins'.
Sampras likes serving and Federer's serve game is better now overall, particularly the first serve game with his new game and racket. Strong first serve game is big time in slams because if said player starts getting most of their firsts in, they become almost unbreakable. Such a player can get very hot. Its hard to win a slam without a great first serve as Murray has proven over and over again in his career as the player just does not have this gear. Fed's game may not be as pretty overall and fast, but with his improved serve game, Federer would have won the last three slams he played if Djokovic had not been in the way. Fed still moves awfully well by any other standards. By the way this is precisely what is holding back Rafa's resurgence; his first serve game has actually been deteriorating late in his career.Why does Sampras say he's getting better then? Or that he's playing comparably, if not better to how he was 10 years ago?
Stretch has Murray (who isn't even that much better than Hewitt and Roddick) and a 35 year old Fed, whereas Federer had Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Nadal at his peak. You're going to tell me Stretch has/had it harder?Fed has no rivals back when he was 22-27 Roddick or hewitt or bagdadihs or philopooosis/ Nadal was only clay Clay thats all. He was far too inconsistent to be rival on anything apart from Clay..,
Stretch has Murray (who isn't even that much better than Hewitt and Roddick) and a 35 year old Fed, whereas Federer had Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Nadal at his peak. You're going to tell me Stretch has/had it harder?
Djokovic had the chance to face a weakened Nadal during his best years though - Federer never got that chance; and in fact, Federer had to deal with the brunt of his improvement during 2008 and early 2009.I mostly agree but I generally think of Nadal's best as 2008-2013. So I would say Djokovic had a bit more of Nadal's overall best if anything considering the best years of Fed are 2004-2007 and 2009, and the best years of Djokovic are 2011-2016 (so far).
Of course Nadal is peculiar and varies around by surface, circumstances, health, etc..
Yep. Just saw great French Open with historic depth of field and new players on the rise (sorry that Nadal crapped out mid-tournament.) Wimbledon is looking insanely strong:Just like king Marat Safin said. Winning grand slams right now is way easier than before.
I don't know how people are still debating whether Djokovic will reach 17 slams... Have you seen the depth of the field?
Come on people
bahahahaha. Safin is at best equivalent to Wawrinka. Roddick is a joke (servebot pusher). Hewitt was declined pretty quickly. Murray has an extremely consistent record and just made a French Open final, please don't compare him to Roddick and peak Hewitt was basically preFed and quickly became a nonentity with injury. Djokovic has been lucky at Wimbledon in that he's not had to face Murray on his best surface and venue. Kyrgios, Thiem, and Zverev are coming so slams as far as the eyes can see for the aspiring GOAT will start drying up in about a year, if not sooner.Stretch has Murray (who isn't even that much better than Hewitt and Roddick) and a 35 year old Fed, whereas Federer had Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Nadal at his peak. You're going to tell me Stretch has/had it harder?
- Safin was better than Wawrinka.bahahahaha. Safin is at best equivalent to Wawrinka. Roddick is a joke (servebot pusher). Hewitt was declined pretty quickly. Murray has an extremely consistent record and just made a French Open final, please don't compare him to Roddick and peak Hewitt was basically preFed and quickly became a nonentity with injury. Djokovic has been lucky at Wimbledon in that he's not had to face Murray on his best surface and venue. Kyrgios, Thiem, and Zverev are coming so slams as far as the eyes can see for the aspiring GOAT will start drying up in about a year, if not sooner.
I know you're not old and my post was also addressed to the thread participants at large. Frankly, you sound very pessimistic and a victim of TTW indoctrination. Depth of field is quite high right now. These old farts on this site just can't/don't want to see it coming.My point completely flew over your head methinks.
I'm not even that old, is under 25 old?
Also i'm not a pessimistic, i'm realistic. Sorry, i can't just delude myself to think some stuff to make myself happy.
I'll be on my way. Adios Amigo.
I know you're not old and my post was also addressed to the thread participants at large. Frankly, you sound very pessimistic and a victim of TTW indoctrination. Depth of field is quite high right now. These old farts on this site just can't/don't want to see it coming.
Safin won one slam in 2005 and a final in 2004. That's it during the Federer era. Wawrinka has had two lights out slam wins. I'd take Safin's career over Wawa, but Wawa has been greater competition in the Djokovic era than Safin was in the Fed era. Peak Hewitt was greater than Murray it just didn't happen when Fed was a contender and as you say by 2005 the injuries took Hewitt down from anywhere near peak.- Safin was better than Wawrinka.
- Hewitt declined due to multiple surgeries at his peak (2 in 2005 alone) that hampered his movement.
- Murray made the FO final due to the horrible field.
- Djokovic would beat Murray at Wimbledon.
- Kyrgios, Thiem and Zverev? Are you kidding me?! The same Thiem who was 0-3 down in a set against Djokovic, this guy is going to make the 'era' stronger?
I just look at the stats and numbers rather than delude myself with pessimism and unreasonable expectations. Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer are the three greatest players of the modern pro era (Borg and Sampras fans welcome to take exception) and their careers significantly overlapped. Poor Murray has been caught in the crossfire and has a superlative slam record and career. You are deluded if you think you'll ever see anything like this again, possibly ever. The youngins have to be beasts before they can compete at this level. Rest assured some fresh youngins are about ready to make statements. Don't worry about the coming reality that can be easily forecast and seen in the progress of Kyrgios, Thiem and Zverev.I'm not a victim of TTW's anything. I've barely been on here for a week.
It's okay if you think the depth is great right now. But i know it isn't. If the youngins start stepping up in the next year or two, that would already be nice enough.
It's very hard though lol considering how their current level is galaxies away from Djok/Murray
Stay positive tho. #positivevibes
I feel Safin was a better player than Wawrinka though (not the 2004 final but the 2005 SF and F). Wawrinka's best playing period coincided with Djokovic more than Safin with Federer, but it's undeniable IMO.Safin won one slam in 2005 and a final in 2004. That's it during the Federer era. Wawrinka has had two lights out slam wins. I'd take Safin's career over Wawa, but Wawa has been greater competition in the Djokovic era than Safin was in the Fed era. Peak Hewitt was greater than Murray it just didn't happen when Fed was a contender and as you say by 2005 the injuries took Hewitt down from anywhere near peak.
I've seen a lot of Thiem and I think he is a good player, but I don't think he is good enough to be challenging Djokovic. I also don't see the hype around Zverev, his brother posted similar results to him a few years ago (and was touted as a big player) so we'll need to wait and see.Meles said:We'll see at Wimbledon. Your weak clay field in 2016 had 4 of the top 5 players as eventual French Open champs. Murray's improved clay stats are undeniable the last two years (please wake up on this.) Thiem was a bit gassed for the SF with Djokovic after 4 hard sets with Goffin just the day before. Sorry if French SF is all you've seen of Thiem. Thiem is already surprising post clay season with unbelievable first serving numbers on grass (better than Sampras and way better than Fed) and fine returning. The first serve points won numbers are actually with an off serve to boot. Thiem is a moving target and Kyrgios is exceptionally dangerous too with already great hard court stats in 2016 that include a 2nd serve return. Zverev made a nice move on clay and I'm not sure if his game will take off on grass like it did on clay (hard courts he's not there.) Zverev just turned 19, so he looks like he's going to easily be a strong top ten player who might get the occaisional major. If the kid gets a bit stronger he's going to be the "stretch" on tour.
Djokovic had the chance to face a weakened Nadal during his best years though - Federer never got that chance; and in fact, Federer had to deal with the brunt of his improvement during 2008 and early 2009.